James 4:17New International Version (NIV)
17 If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.

I missed this earlier. How does this one verse become "the Christian basis for morality"? First, I'm not sure it's correct to interpret this verse as meaning "the Christian basis for morality is that if you know to do good and you do not it is sin". The rest of what you said here is "Think about raping and you have broken it. Think about doing your neighbor harm and you have broken it." I think "good" in the verse is intended far more generally than that. But even if I overlook that for the sake of discussion, how does this somehow become the basis for Christian morality?

Adey, he's right. The entire scientific consensus CAN be wrong, and one guy with a "crazy" new idea can disprove it all. More commonly, it's not that the consensus was wrong, but that they were overlooking some new piece of information that forces the original position to be revised. Examples of this include the discovery of genetics and of relativity. In the latter case, it's not that Newton was WRONG, per se, just that he had no knowledge of the speed of light and no ability to even suspect that his laws of motion changed at extremely high velocities.

In the case of Behe, it's this "one guy can disprove all of you" idea that Creationists bank upon, ignoring that 1) Behe also acknowledges evolution and our common ancestry with chimps, and 2) in order to overcome the prevailing consensus of the day, you must have the ability to scientifically demonstrate that your ideas are valid. Einstein did just that. Behe has not only failed at it, he has been openly demonstrated to be wrong in every prediction he has made.

Far from being a champion of anti-evolution science, he has become a laughingstock when even he was forced to admit that in order for his idea to be called science, we would have to expand the definition of science itself to such a degree that astrology would fall under its reach. Behe's ideas are not science but wishful thinking, and he has made a lot of money from those who still think that his ideas land credence to their desire to deny the scientific evidence.

In short, science does not work by consensus, but when you have a model like evolution that has stood up to literally over a century of scrutiny by the scientific community, it's okay to refer to that consensus because it has become a well confirmed concept widely accepted.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson

As a side note... when the Creationists claim that guys like Behe and Dembski are suppressed because evolution is akin to a religious dogma (Bz has not said this; it's just a common refrain), they ignore that I know about Gregor Mendel and Albert Einstein BECAUSE they disproved the prevailing scientific concepts of their day. Likewise, disproving evolution or replacing it with a better concept would make the person who did it a hero in scientific circles!

So when I get the comment about scientific dogma, I tend to point out this phenomenon and invite the claimant to publish their proofs and collect their Nobel Prize.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson

(16-12-2016 01:51 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote: In short, science does not work by consensus, but when you have a model like evolution that has stood up to literally over a century of scrutiny by the scientific community, it's okay to refer to that consensus because it has become a well confirmed concept widely accepted.

Evolution is a falsifiable theory and yet it hasn't been falsified, new evidence could have falsified evolution but it didn't. The theory of evolution came before knowledge of DNA, and many fossils and much understanding of Continental shift. All of these could have falsified the theory of evolution, but instead they conformed to the constraints predicted by evolution.

(16-12-2016 12:27 PM)Bzltyr Wrote: I already explained that my comment about atheist lying was tongue-in-cheek and meant to highlight prejudice.

Your original posting didn't read like "tongue in cheek." It sounds more like the "I was just joking" excuse used by abusers.

Quote:The "don't even think" "nonsense" is a higher level of morality than anything humanism can claim.

It has nothing to do with a higher morality. It's psychologically damaging, creating a state of cognitive dissonance and internal stress. The only healthy way to deal with unwanted thoughts is to mindfully confront them and dig down to reason through them, not to shove them off to one side and pretend that you've somehow transcended them.

(16-12-2016 12:22 PM)Bzltyr Wrote: Yeah, those are cool citations given to Jews. Now, lets see what has been said to Christians.
Romans 10:4, which says: "Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes
"Know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified" (Galatians 2:16).
Rom 6:14
For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.
Just a sampling.

You do realize that Jesus never spoke to any Christians, right? It was impossible for Jesus to speak to Christians because Christians didn't yet exist. But that doesn't make his words any less relevant for Christians no matter how arbitrarily some Christians like yourself might prefer to dismiss them.

Yes, I am aware. That does not mean He did not espouse Christian doctrine.